> The Nobel Prize in Physics this year has been awarded for work related to
> digital photography & fiber-optic networks
> (http://apnews.myway.com//article/20091006/D9B5J4GO0.html). With no
> disrespect to the work of the 3 people who are sharing the prize, it seems to
> me significant that in recent years it seems more & more to be given to work
> that is essentially in technological applications rather than fundamental
> physics. This is not entirely new -
> some of the physics prizes in the early 20th century were given for things
> like color photography & coastal lighting. But what it suggests today is the
> paucity of really important work in fundamental physics that actually
> corresponds to reality. For all the work that's been done in string theory &
> its extensions over the past ~25 years, it isn't remotely close to getting a
> prize.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm>

Can your last mark be construed as "it isn't remotely close to *earning* a
prize?" or did you mean that more as "it isn't close to being considered
despite its merits towards consideration?"
I'm just curious whether things like string theory have been advancing in
mainstream respectability or towards any revolutionary break-throughs.

--Merv

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Oct 6 11:54:13 2009